Document: OBJECTION TO PETITION
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/503.0 OBJECTION TO PETITION 2023-07-12 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2023-07-12
Summary (Justice Demanded)
In a comprehensive overview of the court documents, it is apparent that Aaron Surina, the respondent and father, perceives an unjust bias against him throughout the custody proceedings. He objects to Sirinya Surina’s (the mother’s) petition to relocate with their children, arguing that the move is not in the best interest of the children. He alleges a lack of proper notice about the relocation plans, suggesting a potential lack of transparency and unethical conduct by the mother.
Despite sharing substantially equal residential time with the children, Sirinya Surina plans the move without considering Aaron’s objections. This disregard for shared custody raises questions about the mother’s actions and whether they truly serve the children’s best interests. Aaron proposes a change in custody orders, arguing that he can provide a more stable, nurturing, and supportive environment for the children.
Moreover, Aaron perceives an unjust bias in the court’s apparent prioritization of the mother’s professional aspirations over the children’s needs and his parental rights. He is concerned about the potential negative impact of the proposed relocation on the children’s academic and emotional stability. He further criticizes the court’s disregard for the children’s safety, citing instances of the children being left unsupervised in adult spaces, and the neglectful conduct of the mother.
Additionally, Aaron feels sidelined in the litigation process, with opposing counsel dictating proceedings and final order wordings. He also points out the mother’s misleading statements about her housing costs and relocation plans, viewing these as attempts to deceive the court. Aaron further objects to the mother’s disregard for his role in the children’s lives and her unilateral decision to relocate without seeking court approval or giving proper notice.
Aaron strongly opposes the relocation, arguing that it is motivated by financial gain, disregards the children’s education and stability, and poses a significant financial burden on him as a stay-at-home father. He believes the relocation will disrupt the children’s social life and education, condemning the mother’s intention to uproot them for financial gain as biased and unethical.
Despite no direct evidence of bias or unethical conduct against Aaron in the court documents, there is a lack of clarity in certain areas, which may signify potential injustices. These include vague mentions of a possible restraining order and a lack of detailed information about Aaron’s ability or willingness to care for the children.
Furthermore, Aaron feels aggrieved by the court’s assertion of home state jurisdiction over the children, the existing Protection Order, and the lack of a valid custody order or open custody case in the children’s home state. He also expresses concern about bearing the costs of the proceedings and the confidentiality of the sensitive documents filed with the court.
In essence, Aaron Surina perceives an unfair bias against him throughout the court proceedings, characterized by a disregard for his rights, an unjustifiable imposition of costs, and a lack of consideration for his crucial evidence. He views this as a clear case of injustice and unethical conduct, necessitating court intervention.
About The Author
